Search

Hereditary connective tissue disorders (HCTDs) are a heterogeneous group of inherited diseases. These disorders show genetic mutations with loss of function of primary components of connective tissue, such as collagen and elastic fibers. There are more than 200 conditions that involve hereditary connective tissue disorders, while the most known are Marfan syndrome, Osteogenesis Imperfecta, and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. These disorders need continuous updates, multidisciplinary skills, and specific methodologic evaluations sharing many medicolegal issues. Marfan syndrome and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes show a high risk of early sudden death. As a consequence of this, postmortem genetic testing can identify novel genotype-phenotype correlations which help the clinicians to assess personalized cardiovascular screening programs among the ill subjects. Genetic testing is also essential to identify children suffering from Osteogenesis Imperfecta, especially when a physical abuse is clinically suspected. However, this is a well-known clinical problem even though there are still challenges to interpret genetic data and variants of unknown significance due to the current extensive use of new genetic/genomic techniques. Additionally, the more significant applications and complexities of genomic testing raise novel responsibilities on the clinicians, geneticists, and forensic practitioners as well, increasing potential liability and medical malpractice claims. This systematic review provides a detailed overview on how multidisciplinary skills belonging to clinicians, medicolegal consultants, radiologists, and geneticists can cooperate to manage HCTDs from autopsy or clinical findings to genetic testing. Thus, technical aspects need to be addressed to the medicolegal community since there is no consensus works or guidelines which specifically discuss these issues., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the matter of this statement.

Background: Somatic and germline genetic alterations are significant drivers of cancer. Increasing integration of new technologies which profile these alterations requires timely, equitable and high-quality genetic counselling to facilitate accurate diagnoses and informed decision-making by patients and their families in preventive and clinical settings. This article aims to provide an overview of genetic counselling legislation and practice across European Union (EU) Member States to serve as a foundation for future European recommendations and action., Methods: National legislative databases of all 27 Member States were searched using terms relevant to genetic counselling, translated as appropriate. Interviews with relevant experts from each Member State were conducted to validate legislative search results and provide detailed insights into genetic counselling practice in each country., Results: Genetic counselling is included in national legislative documents of 22 of 27 Member States, with substantial variation in legal mechanisms and prescribed details (i.e. the 'who, what, when and where' of counselling). Practice is similarly varied. Workforce capacity (25 of 27 Member States) and genetic literacy (all Member States) were common reported barriers. Recognition and/or better integration of genetic counsellors and updated legislation and were most commonly noted as the 'most important change' which would improve practice., Conclusions: This review highlights substantial variability in genetic counselling across EU Member States, as well as common barriers notwithstanding this variation. Future recommendations and action should focus on addressing literacy and capacity challenges through legislative, regulatory and/or strategic approaches at EU, national, regional and/or local levels., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility syndrome mainly due to variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Patients presenting with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations have a lifetime risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer (80% and 40%, respectively). Genetic testing to explore the predisposition to develop cancer represents a pivotal factor in such cases, and this review wants to explore the main implications in terms of medicolegal liability and insurance issues. Medicolegal issues related to these diagnostic processes include: (a) failure to recommend the test; (b) failure to properly interpret the test; (c) failure to correctly translate results into clinical practice; (d) lack of informed consent; and (e) failure to refer patients to specialized genetic counseling. Such errors may lead to compensation since the legal burden inherent in the efficacy of prophylactic interventions is a proof that requires the so-called 'preponderance of the evidence'. Concerning insurance issues, the carriers of such alleles without cancer are healthy because the genetic predisposition is not a disease per se but represents a (relevant) health risk. However, disclosure of these conditions can be impelled by insurers. It can lead to so-called 'genetic discrimination' because insurance companies might use genetic information to limit insurance options or increase their costs. Many private and public healthcare funders do not cover risk reducing surgeries, even when recommended as part of a risk reduction management plan for BRCA gene mutation carriers. Here, positions on these matters from different high income countries are discussed, stressing the importance of a common supranational or international regulatory framework to reach a trade-off between the economic interests of insurers and the rights of carriers not to disclose extremely sensitive information., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) to correct a nuclear gene sequence that would result in a serious genetic condition in a future child is presented as 'treatment' in various ethics and policy materials, and as morally preferable to the 'selection' practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which is subject to the disability critique. However, whether HHGE is 'treatment' for a future child, or another form of 'selection', or whether HHGE instead 'treats' prospective parents, are now central questions in the debate regarding its possible legalisation. This article argues that the idea of 'treatment' for a future child is largely a proxy for 'seriousness of purpose', intended to distinguish HHGE to avoid serious genetic conditions from less obviously justifiable uses; that HHGE is best understood, and morally justified, as a form of 'treatment' for prospective parents who strongly desire an unaffected genetically related child and who have no, or poor, options to achieve this; that HHGE would be morally permissible if consistent with that child's welfare; that legalisation is supportable with reference to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that HHGE is morally distinguishable from PGT., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Genetic testing has familial implications. Counsellors find themselves in (moral) conflict between medical confidentiality (towards the patient) and a potential right or even duty to warn at-risk relatives. Legal regulations vary between countries. English literature about German law is scarce. We reviewed the literature of relevant legal cases, focussing on German law, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This article aims to familiarise counsellors with their responsibilities, compare the situation between countries and point out legally unresolved areas.According to the German Genetic Diagnostics Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) in case of an 'avoidable or treatable' genetic disorder, geneticists ought to confine themselves to the obligated advice to the patient. Whether a breach of the duty of confidentiality can be justified in exceptional cases by 'necessity as justification' for actively informing relatives at risk remains legally unclear. In case of a 'neither avoidable nor treatable' genetic disease, geneticists should also refrain from actively informing relatives as the justifiable state of emergency does not permit to break the duty of confidentiality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Study Question: Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?, Summary Answer: While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models., What Is Known Already: PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks., Study Design, Size, Duration: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT., Main Results and the Role of Chance: We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation., Wider Implications of the Findings: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) has attracted considerable ethical, legal, and social scrutiny, but academic debate often fails to reflect clinical realities., Methods: Addressing this disconnect, a review of 506 articles from 1999 to 2019 across humanities and social sciences was conducted to synthesize the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of PGT. This review mined PubMed, WoS, and Scopus databases, using both MeSH terms and keywords to map out the research terrain., Results: The findings reveal a tenfold increase in global research output on PGT's ELSI from 1999 to 2019, signifying rising interest and concern. Despite heightened theoretical discourse on selecting "optimal" offspring, such practices were scarcely reported in clinical environments. Conversely, critical issues like PGT funding and familial impacts remain underexplored. Notably, 86% of the ELSI literature originates from just 12 countries, pointing to a research concentration., Conclusion: This review underscores an urgent need for ELSI research to align more closely with clinical practice, promoting collaborations among ethicists, clinicians, policymakers, and economists. Such efforts are essential for grounding debates in practical relevance, ultimately steering PGT towards ethical integrity, societal acceptance, and equitable access, aiming to harmonize PGT research with real-world clinical concerns, enhancing the relevance and impact of future ethical discussions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The recent commercialization of the Embryo Health Score (EHS), determined through preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic conditions, offers the potential to select embryos with lower disease risk, thus potentially enhancing offspring longevity and health. Lately, Orchid Health company increased testing from less than 20 diseases to more than 900+ conditions for birth defects. However, the "geneticization" of phenotype estimates to a health state erases the environmental part, including the in vitro fertilization potential risks, questioning its scientific usefulness. EHS is utilized in countries with minimal regulatory oversight and will likely expand, while it remains illegal in other countries due to ethical and legal dilemmas it raises about reproductive autonomy, discrimination, impacts on family dynamics, and genetic diversity. The shift toward commercialized polygenic embryo screening (PES) redefines healthcare relationships, turning prospective parents into consumers and altering the physician's role. Moreover, PES could increase social inequalities, stigmatize those not born following PES, and encourage "desirable" phenotypic or behavioral traits selection, leading to ethical drift. Addressing these issues is essential before further implementation and requires a collaborative approach involving political, governmental, and public health, alongside geneticists, ethicists, and fertility specialists, focusing on the societal implications and acceptability of testing for polygenic traits for embryo selection., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.

Molecular genetic pathology (MGP) is a subspecialty of pathology and medical genetics and genomics. Genomic testing, which is defined as that which generates large data sets and interrogates large segments of the genome in a single assay, is increasingly recognized as essential for optimal patient care through precision medicine. The most common genomic testing technologies in clinical laboratories are next-generation sequencing and microarray. It is essential to train in these methods and to consider the data generated in the context of the diagnosis, medical history, and other clinical findings of individual patients. Accordingly, updating the MGP fellowship curriculum to include genomics is timely, important, and challenging. At the completion of training, an MGP fellow should be capable of independently interpreting and signing out results of a wide range of genomic assays and, given the appropriate context and institutional support, of developing and validating new assays in compliance with applicable regulations. The Genomics Task Force of the MGP Program Directors, a working group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee, has developed a genomics curriculum framework and recommendations specific to the MGP fellowship. These recommendations are presented for consideration and implementation by MGP fellowship programs with the understanding that MGP programs exist in a diversity of clinical practice environments with a spectrum of available resources., (Copyright © 2021 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To study recent legal cases involving the transfer of the incorrect embryo into patients and learn how fertility clinics can better serve clients, protect themselves financially, and safeguard their physicians' personal assets., Methods: The Nexis Uni database was used to review legal cases, news, and business publications of previous cases of embryo mix-ups. County and district courthouse dockets were also queried for filings and court documents related to lawsuits involving embryo mix-ups using Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). Emphasis was placed on court decisions, awarded damages, and legal and media coverage related to embryo mix-up events., Results: A case law review of US legal databases and courthouse dockets was conducted for cases between 2000 and 2020, focusing on lawsuits against reproductive endocrinologists and in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities offering embryo transfer (ET). Improper labeling and ineffective communication led to errors in the cases reviewed., Conclusion: It is prudent for clinics to protect themselves from embryo mix-ups, which can subsequently lead to undesirable clinical outcomes, as well as lawsuits stemming from these errors. This article emphasizes following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, employing a two-step read back method prior to ET, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is found in the record. In the case an embryo mix-up does occur, it is recommended to protect personal assets through business organizing procedures and consider settlement offers for policy limits.

Along with the potential for breakthroughs in care and prevention, the search for genetic mechanisms underlying the spread and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduces the risk of discrimination against those found to have markers for susceptibility. We propose new legal protections to mitigate gaps in protections under existing laws., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Recent advancements in reproductive genetics have resulted in the availability of an extraordinary amount of new and detailed information for patients and providers. Whereas this information can inform many who are facing difficult clinical decisions, it can also introduce complex and uncertain choices. Expanded carrier screening and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy are important examples of new genetic techniques that are now widely used in reproductive medicine. This paper will explore these techniques through a medical-legal prism to better understand the opportunities and obligations incumbent on both patients and providers in this new age of genetic diagnosis., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Newborn screening (NBS) is an important part of public healthcare systems in many countries. The provision of information to parents about NBS is now recognised as an integral part of the screening process. Informing parents on all aspects of screening helps to achieve the benefits, promote trust and foster support for NBS. Therefore, policies and guidelines should exist to govern how the information about NBS is provided to parents, taking into account evidence-based best practices. The purpose of our survey was to explore whether any legally binding provisions, guidelines or recommendations existed pertaining to the provision of information about NBS to parents across Europe. Questions were designed to determine the regulatory process of when, by whom and how parents should be informed about screening. Twenty-seven countries participated in the survey. The results indicated that most countries had some sort of legal framework or guidelines for the provision of information to parents. However, only 37% indicated that the provision of information was required prenatally. The majority of countries were verbally informing parents with the aid of written materials postnatally, just prior to sample collection. Information was provided by a neonatologist, midwife or nurse. A website dedicated to NBS was available for 67% of countries and 89% had written materials about NBS for parents. The survey showed that there is a lack of harmonisation among European countries in the provision of information about NBS and emphasised the need for more comprehensive guidelines at the European level.

Nearly three decades ago, scientists set out on one of the largest research endeavors in modern history-mapping the human genome. The research not only sparked new technologies and genetic tests, but also concomitant concerns regarding ethical, legal, and social implications of the technologies. These developments ultimately resulted in an expanded role for genetic counselors to educate consumers about the possible consequences of receiving genetic test results. In particular, many individuals undergoing testing worry that the resulting information could be used by social actors, such as life insurers, in harmful ways. Because life insurance is regulated at the state level, there is significant variability across the United States in laws and enforcement protecting consumers' genetic information. This article reports the results of a survey of U.S. state insurance commissioners regarding regulation of genetic testing and life insurance. The survey builds on a 1992 survey conducted by Jean E. McEwen et al. It returns to current U.S. state insurance commissioners to investigate changes in the climate surrounding genetic information use and risks of misuse within the insurance industry. In their 1992 survey, McEwen et al. found that: (a) genetic testing was not yet perceived to pose a significant problem for insurance rating, (b) life insurers had quite a bit of legal freedom to require and use genetic test results, and (c) insurance commissioners had received few consumers' complaints about the use of genetic information. Twenty-seven years later, our survey finds an increase in regulation protecting genetic information in insurance, but at a pace much slower than that of advances in new DNA technologies. This lag in policy to match technology increases potential risks for consumers. Our study further reveals certain inconsistencies in the letter of state law protecting consumers' genetic information and how state insurance commissioners apply that law. The study also shows that despite empirical evidence in the literature demonstrating consumer fear about genetic discrimination, consumers do not report these concerns to their state insurance commissioner. We suggest genetic counselors are key stakeholders who can help fill current gaps between consumers and the insurance industry., (© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways., (Copyright © 2020 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) often surface when discussing research and innovation in genetics. Over recent decades, countries around the world have attempted to address GD using various policy measures. In this article, we survey these approaches and provide a critical commentary on their advantages and disadvantages. Our examination begins with regions featuring extensive policy-making activities (North America and Europe), followed by regions with moderate policy-making activities (Australia, Asia, and South America) and regions with minimal policy-making activities (the Middle East and Africa). Our analysis then turns to emerging issues regarding genetic testing and GD, including the expansion of multiomics sciences and direct-to-consumer genetic tests outside the health context. We additionally survey the shortcomings of current normative approaches addressing GD. Finally, we conclude by highlighting the evolving nature of GD and the need for more innovative policy-making in this area.

The genetic testing industry is progressing rapidly. In particular, the demand of patients with tumors for diagnosis, treatment, and testing drives genetic testing to develop further. Simultaneously, the potential risks of genetic testing cause severe challenges to regulatory departments. In China, a targeted, clear, and unified management model remains absent., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial companies offer genetic tests that are presented as allowing individuals the opportunity to increase their capacities to be in charge of their own healthcare managements. DTC companies deny performing medical tests, yet they provide data based on sequencing multigene panel or whole exome. This contradiction allows these companies to escape the requirements of a regulated medical practice that guarantees the quality of the tests, as well as the information and support for tested individuals. Herein, we illustrate the lack of such requirements by analysing the bad experience of a young man who dealt with DTC health genetic testing companies. There is an emergency for DTC testing to be either deprived of any medically relevant information, or carried out in a legally regulated medical framework., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Assisted reproduction technologies are being rapidly developed and implementation of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) has allowed patients with genetic disorders to initiate pregnancies while minimizing or eliminating the risk of transmitting these disorders to their offspring. Testing for numeric chromosomal anomalies has been proposed as a way to increase efficacy in assisted reproduction; however, this remains disputed. Legislation is lagging behind the rapid developments in this field., Material and Methods: We conducted a structured online survey of legislation and accessibility to preimplantation genetic testing in the Nordic countries to compare the regulation and uptake of this technique. The survey was designed and answered by the authors., Results: Key elements in the regulation of preimplantation testing for monogenic disorders and structural rearrangements are similar in the Nordic countries, although accessibility varies since only Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have national clinics offering treatment. In addition, Denmark and Finland have private clinics offering PGT. Regulation is the most stringent in Norway where a national board evaluates all couples seeking treatment. Treatment volumes vary between the Nordic countries, with Norway and Finland having lowest treatment numbers. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the embryo varies between the Nordic countries: Finland and Iceland allow this form of treatment, Denmark and Sweden offer it only in the form of a research protocol, and Norway does not allow it at all. Therefore the number of treatment cycles involving testing for embryo aneuploidy are lower in the Nordic countries than in other countries where this treatment option is more common., Conclusions: Science needs to inform politics regarding the rapidly evolving field of reproductive medicine and we recommend harmonization of legislation and accessibility between the Nordic countries., (© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is a reproductive technology that, in the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF), allows prospective parents to select their future offspring based on genetic characteristics. PGT could be seen as an exercise of reproductive liberty, thus potentially raising significant socioethical and legal controversy. In this review, we examine-from a comparative perspective-variations in policy approaches to the regulation of PGT. We draw on a sample of 19 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) to provide a global landscape of the spectrum of policy and legislative approaches (e.g., restrictive to permissive, public vs. private models). We also explore central socioethical and policy issues and contentious applications, including permissibility criteria (e.g., medical necessity), nonmedical sex selection, and reproductive tourism. Finally, we further outline genetic counseling requirements across policy approaches., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

The genetic tests for "non-rare thrombophilias" (TNR) were introduced into clinical setting immediately after the identification of genetic variants in the mid-90s to predict and prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although being a rare example of a genetic test of susceptibility for complex diseases that has been integrated in medical routine, it is the most widespread post-natal genetics inquiry in France nowadays. Yet, determining whom to test and how to use the results is still controversial. This article outlines the trajectory of its clinical regulation and illustrates the importance of the context of use to understand its diffusion. This analysis is intended to feed a more general reflection on the issues raised by the clinical integration of genetic surveys for common diseases, particularly with regard to the clinical utility of a test (statistical vs. biological), the subjects to be tested (the case index and/or her/his relatives), and the criteria underlying access to these tests (modalities of medico-economic assessment)., (© 2020 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

This review will explore two legal issues in genetic counseling: genetic discrimination and the duty to warn. It emphasizes the complexity and variability of federal and state genetic nondiscrimination protections in the United States and how the many gaps in such protections may affect people pursuing genetic testing. The limited law addressing legal obligations genetic counselors owe at-risk relatives likely does not require counselors to warn relatives directly about genetic risks. Whether it permits them to make such disclosures, however, is more uncertain and may depend on the jurisdiction., (Copyright © 2020 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

The rapidly evolving genetic technologies that are available to patients and obstetrician-gynecologists have transformed the practice of clinical medicine. From cell-free DNA screening technologies in pregnancy to expanded carrier screening and hereditary cancer gene panels, obstetrician-gynecologists often are faced with questions about their legal responsibilities regarding genetic information as well as the legal ramifications of this information for their patients.The Committee on Genetics has constructed the following case studies to highlight some of the legal issues an obstetrician-gynecologist may encounter when performing genetic testing. These cases do not cover the breadth of legal issues affecting clinical genetics, but rather they illustrate certain legal concepts and principles as well as key pieces of legislation that are pertinent to clinical care. These case descriptions are not intended to serve as legal advice. Obstetrician-gynecologists are strongly encouraged to seek expert legal assistance to resolve questions involving legal rights or responsibilities.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All the authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

The rapidly evolving genetic technologies that are available to patients and obstetrician-gynecologists have transformed the practice of clinical medicine. From cell-free DNA screening technologies in pregnancy to expanded carrier screening and hereditary cancer gene panels, obstetrician-gynecologists often are faced with questions about their legal responsibilities regarding genetic information as well as the legal ramifications of this information for their patients.The Committee on Genetics has constructed the following case studies to highlight some of the legal issues an obstetrician-gynecologist may encounter when performing genetic testing. These cases do not cover the breadth of legal issues affecting clinical genetics, but rather they illustrate certain legal concepts and principles as well as key pieces of legislation that are pertinent to clinical care. These case descriptions are not intended to serve as legal advice. Obstetrician-gynecologists are strongly encouraged to seek expert legal assistance to resolve questions involving legal rights or responsibilities.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provides federal safeguards to prohibit employer or insurance discrimination based on personal or familial genetic information or conditions. Awareness of the implications of genetic testing in individuals and families and of state and federal legislation in place for their protection is an essential component of oncology nursing practice. This article discusses the critical role of the oncology nurse in interacting with and providing information about GINA to patients in a cancer care setting engaged in genetic assessment.

Background: Barriers to genetic testing and subsequent family cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) include cost, patient and provider awareness, privacy and discrimination concerns, need for a physician order, underutilization of genetic counselors, and family concerns about the implications of genetic testing for care., Objectives: The objective of the study was to determine the uptake of genetic testing with cost and privacy removed., Methods: The FH Foundation offered free genetic testing and counseling to patients in the patient portal of the CASCADE FH Registry, who had not previously undergone genetic testing for 3 genes associated with FH (LDLR, APOB, and PCSK9). The free testing offer was extended to first-degree relatives of participants who had a positive genetic test result for cascade screening., Results: Of 435 eligible patients, 147 opted in to participate, 122 consented, and 110 (68.2% female, median age: 52 years) received genetic testing. Of the participants, 64 had a positive genetic test result for a pathogenic variant in LDLR (59) or APOB (5); 11 had a variant of uncertain significance. Only 3 first-degrees relatives underwent genetic testing., Conclusions: Although there was substantial interest in genetic testing, uptake of family cascade screening was poor. Innovative approaches to increase family cascade screening should be explored., (Copyright © 2020 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges. See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The rapidly evolving popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies has made it possible to retrieve genomic information for unintended reasons by third parties, including the emerging use for law enforcement purposes. The question remains whether users of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies and genealogical databases are aware that their genetic and/or genealogical data could be used as means to solving forensic cases. Our review of 22 companies' and databases' policies showed that only four companies have provided additional information on how law enforcement agencies should request permission to use their services for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, two databases have adopted a different approach by providing a special service for law enforcement. Although all companies and databases included in the study provide at least some provisions about police access, there is an ongoing debate over the ethics of these practices, and how to balance users' privacy with law enforcement requests.

The direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) market has been developing for about twenty years now, raising various debates, even controversies. But what about the regulation of these so-called "innovative" devices, but whose medical status is ambiguous? A first regulatory aspect is depending on the market itself, since the latter is currently subjected to a strong structuring process. A second regulatory aspect, more classical, is the legal one. While the DTC-GT status has long been unclear on European scale, a new text (a Regulation, not a Directive) is modifying the situation. It encourages regulation "by the market" rather than "by the medical profession", which does not imply that the latter will have no (indirect) impact on the DTC-GT market., (© 2020 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

Genomic high-throughput technologies (GHTT) such as next-generation sequencing represent a fast and cost-effective tool toward a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular background of complex diseases. However, technological advances contrast with insufficient application in clinical practice. Thus, patients, physicians, and other professionals are faced with tough challenges that forestall the efficient and effective implementation. With the increasing application of genetic testing, it is of paramount importance that physicians and other professionals in healthcare recognize the restrictions and potential of GHTT, in order to understand and interpret the complex data in the context of health and disease. At the same time, the growing volume and complexity of data is forever increasing the need for sustainable infrastructure and state-of-the-art tools for efficient data management, including their analysis and integration. The large pool of sensitive information remains difficult to interpret and fundamental questions spanning from billing to legal, social, and ethical issues have still not been resolved. Here we summarize and discuss these obstacles in an interdisciplinary context and suggest ways to overcome them. Continuous discussion with clinicians, data managers, biostatisticians, systems medicine experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and patients illuminates the strengths, weakness, and current practices in the pipeline from biomaterial to sequencing and data management. This discussion also highlights the new, cross-disciplinary working collaborations to realize the wide-ranging challenges in clinical genomics including the exceptional demands placed on the staff preparing and presenting the data, as well as the question as to how to report the data and results to patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Molecular genetic testing has raised a variety of policy issues, ranging from privacy to reimbursement. Recently, payment policies have become of paramount importance as Medicare implemented the first significant change to test pricing since 1984 and announced a broad national coverage policy for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in cancer patients that contains significant restrictions. Regulatory and oversight concerns have been important topics for discussion as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Congress, and stakeholders have focused on new approaches to regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Patents on gene sequences and relationships between genetic variants and clinical phenotypes have been points of contention since the field's inception. Two Supreme Court cases invalidated patents on gene sequences and biological relationships, ushering in the era of NGS and precision medicine. However, a recent legislative proposal threatens to reverse these gains and restore gene patents as barriers to progress in genetic and genomic testing and the implementation of genomic medicine., Content: This review discusses current issues in payment policy, laboratory oversight, and gene patenting and their potential impacts on genetic and genomic testing., Summary: Coverage and reimbursement policies present serious challenges to genetic and genomic testing. The potential for FDA regulation of LDTs looms as a significant threat to diagnostic innovation, patient access, and the viability of molecular genetic testing laboratories. Changes in patent law could cause gene patents to reemerge as barriers to the advancement of genomic medicine., (© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.)

Purpose: Clinical utility describes a genetic test's value to patients, families, health-care providers, systems, or society. This study aims to define clinical utility from the perspective of clinicians and develop a novel outcome measure that operationalizes this concept., Methods: Item selection for the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) was informed by a scoping review of the literature. Item reduction was guided by qualitative and quantitative feedback from semistructured interviews and a cross-sectional survey of genetics and nongenetics specialists. Final item selection, index scoring, and structure were guided by feedback from an expert panel of genetics professionals., Results: A review of 194 publications informed the selection of a preliminary set of 25 items. Feedback from 35 semistructured interviews, 113 surveys, and 11 expert panelists informed the content and wording of C-GUIDE's final set of 18 items that reflect on the utility of testing related to diagnosis, management, and familial/psychosocial impact. C-GUIDE achieves content and face validity for use in a range of diagnostic genetic testing settings., Conclusion: Work to establish reliability and construct validity is underway. C-GUIDE will be useful in comparative studies to generate policy-relevant evidence pertaining to the clinical utility of genetic testing across a range of settings.

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services-while limited-could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

Black women at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) continue to underutilize genetic counseling and testing (GCT). One reason for this disparity is a fear of discrimination from insurance companies if identified as high-risk. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted to protect against this type of discrimination; however, Black women's levels of confidence in this law are unknown. In this descriptive study, we sought to (1) assess Black women's confidence in the GINA law and (2) identify multilevel factors related to their confidence in GINA. Ninety-four Black women at-risk of HBOC completed surveys that assessed intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural factors. Multiple regression analysis determined factors associated with confidence in GINA. Most women were ≤50 years of age (66.0%) and about half never had a cancer diagnosis (51.1%). Confidence in GINA was moderate (mean = 10.67; standard deviation = 2.54; range = 5-15). Women who valued GCT reported more confidence in GINA (β = 0.345; CI 0.017 to 0.673; p = 0.040). Lack of confidence in GINA may serve as a barrier to seeking GCT. Efforts to increase the perceived value of GCT among Black women could be benefited by increasing awareness of national efforts towards privacy protections of genetic information.